Around the time that September 11th happened there was sharp debate about whether or not to call what was happening a "culture clash".  Out of a state of shock essays and commentaries dripped from pens.  There were those who immediately took sides and could not seem to get unsucked to the vortex of immediate response necessary...

Attacked?!

Retaliation?!

  The formula seemed as clear as day from night.  Questioning the formula was quickly becoming UNpatriotic even before the vigil candles had burnt out.

  Our own antithetical cultural-personality types...pacifism/lawful bearers of arms...was in torment.  The acts of terrorism demanded response.

  In the postColonialism world the central question is something like, How do we share our culture and invite others to choose to be like us? Right at the turn of the millenium is when 9112001 happened; it was right at that time that intellectually the world came to loggerheads on the fundamental issue/s regarding it's ALL culture.

  It actually wasn't the first time that the sensitive issue/s were up against the reality of conflict.  The military historian John Keegan outlines outstanding cases of culture clash in the fighting field in his work A History of Warfare.  Always pronounced for the Western world's military were the formulas of regimental soldiering put forth by revered experienced soldier-leaders.  As equally pronounced in the field were the klephtic ways of soldiering sallied by various "ethnic" fighters.  All warriors, all expressing their own cultural ways of warfare.